First Robot able to Show Emotion & develop bonds (Humans)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Saturday, August 14, 2010, 04:41 (5023 days ago) @ dhw

dhw,-First part duly noted, and I apologize for... not reading carefully I guess. >_<&#13;&#10;> I wrote that robot rights would be inseparable from robot responsibilities, but asked if one could separate the programme from the programmer. You question this, and ask what is the responsibility of a human ... or a dog. Perhaps my argument was not clear. If a sentient robot ran amok and killed a dozen people, presumably it would have the same rights as a human to a fair trial, but to what extent would we blame the robot, and to what extent the person who designed its programme? (In the case of a dog, we would hold the owner responsible.) As I said, the ethical ramifications are vast, and also extend to the sphere of our own responsibility for our actions ... see my parenthesis in yesterday&apos;s post on heredity and environment.&#13;&#10;> -There&apos;s a book that Adler cites in &quot;The Difference of Man and the Difference it Makes&quot; that talks about just such a court trial. I... would appeal to David for the name of the books as I no longer have my copy. (Library.) -I would say that for argument&apos;s sake... once a machine becomes sentient, the original designer loses any culpability. You can raise your child to be a mean, nasty, thieving S.O.B., but in our legal system, we do not hold the parents culpable for bad parenting. (Only physical neglect, sometimes mental.) -So... I would think that the legal precedent of designer-machine would be parent-child. -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Kurzweil-I first learned about him by buying one of his synthesizers... in the flagship line the technology is from 1996 and is still considered as good as you can get.-Especially his concepts of the Singularity... he&apos;s probably the most interesting techno-sopher of our time. -> This is a complex and exciting subject, and I appreciate your keeping us updated both with the new developments and with your own interpretation of them.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"